[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Science-Technology Title: No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism” I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism". Except, as it turns out, not so much. The article is just so much hot air (see what I did there?) and climate scientists say the paper on which it’s based is fundamentally flawed and flat-out wrong. It’s clear after reading just a few words that this article is hugely biased. The use of the word "alarmist" and its variants appeared no fewer than 14 times, 16 if you include the picture caption and the headline. The word "alarmist" is pretty clearly slanted against the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming up, and that humans are the reason*. Still, what is the article actually saying? NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. That seems pretty clear: if true, it means we may not be heating up as much as scientists predict. Of course, there’s that pesky "if true" caveat. The Forbes article is based on a paper published in the journal Remote Sensing (PDF). The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change, so more on him in a moment — and his work has been shown to be thoroughly wrong by mainstream climate scientists. Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencer’s paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencer’s model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". As ThinkProgress points out, a geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, "don’t make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants. And about the paper itself: "I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. That doesn’t sound like it blows a gaping hole in global warming theories to me. And this makes the breathless rhetoric used in the Forbes article appear to be far more about stirring up controversy rather than actually tackling the science of the issue. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon, dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an, imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a, feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface, temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water, vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse, gas, this leads to additional warming. Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. Tagline for sale - inquire within #2. To: go65 (#1) Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. Does he receive ANY money from the government? Does he receive ANY money from the "global warming" groups, that are promoting the "green" agenda? From wikipedia:
Andrew Dessler is a professor at Texas A&M University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. ... Dessler spent the year 2000 as a senior policy analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. While there, he became aware of that policymakers and the general public often lack an understanding of how science works and how to interpret the conflicting claims in policy debates. Yeah, another government "global-warming" stooge. Ain't THAT a shocker... < /sarc > It used to be the leftists that had bumper-stickers that said things like "Question Authority.' Today they follow slogans from 1984: War is peace. They blindly LOVE Big Brother. They believe competition, pride & profiting from ones labor, are evil things to be banished. Stephen King observed, "The beauty of religion mania is that it has the power to explain everything... [so] logic can be happily tossed out the window. This describes socialists. They will ignore logic and "common sense." They will ignore REALITY. Because THEY are religious zealots... THEIR God... is the STATE. #3. To: All (#2) Doing a Google search under the exact terms, +"andrew dessler" +"global warming" +scam Yields About 2,210 results (0.16 seconds) It used to be the leftists that had bumper-stickers that said things like "Question Authority.' Today they follow slogans from 1984: War is peace. They blindly LOVE Big Brother. They believe competition, pride & profiting from ones labor, are evil things to be banished. Stephen King observed, "The beauty of religion mania is that it has the power to explain everything... [so] logic can be happily tossed out the window. This describes socialists. They will ignore logic and "common sense." They will ignore REALITY. Because THEY are religious zealots... THEIR God... is the STATE. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|